And BTW, why the heck would someone have to read source code to understand how a kernel call works? Shouldn't he have been able to settle this using kernel docs rather than reading the source
Well, being not too familiar with the kernel docs, and not wanting to read them all, it was easier to grep the source tree and find the particular function I wanted to check out than it was to check the docs.
Sorry, but I don't take any post that uses phrases like "monstrous and evil" seriously, nor does suggesting that people opposed to your argument should be killed.
If your not prepared to even listen to the opposing argument, you are irrational and should be ignored.
In this case, the injury was caused by years of typing at work. So why shouldn't she be recompensed like anyone else disabled by on-the-job injuries?
Surely this is a risk of the job, like breaking your leg in football?
I mean, how many people who type nowadays DON'T know about RSI? If you don't know that after being in front of a keyboard for 24 years, your foolish. I have already considered the possibility of getting RSI later in life, weighed it up with my wish to be a software developer, and decided that I am prepared to live with it if (or more likely, when) the time comes.
The analogy with football is the best here - the risk is known, perhaps typists who are _that_ worried should get insurance in case they develop RSI?
By this logic any and all software patents are a logical consequences of a particular configuration of nand gates and should not exist.
I think that this sums it up perfectly, to be honest. The trouble with patents and copyrights is that they prevent other people from taking and idea and extending it into something else. Thus, by having them, you simply slow down invention.
Think of the open standards that are emerging _because_ patents have been put on ideas, such as PNG because of patents behind GIF, Ogg Vorbis because of patents behind MP3's...
And to put it another way, if someone else can take your idea and do it cheaper, and more economically than you can, then by stopping them doing this and making your own version more expensive, you are screwing a hell of a lot of other people out of more money than they really need to spend.
I can't understand how you can say that an assasination would have stoped a world war in one sentence, and then in the very next quote that an assasination caused a world war.
Would you care to elaborate, or was it a satricial post and I missed it?
Um, yes. I _hate_ doing this kind of menial task myself. The more concise it is (as long as it doesn't obfuscate the code, which the word math doesn't IMHO), the more time I can spend on thinking up the best solution to the problem.
Ok, I'm assuming this is a troll, but just in case...
Code Red has been around now (and has had at least 3 stories about it on Slashdot previous to this one, yes?) for a _long_ time. In other words, anyone who reads slashdot by now knows about it, and if they haven't fixed it, deserve a quick reboot to get their attention to fix it.
Secondly, if people aren't going to sit up and take notice of Code Red II now, we've gotta make 'em. I wouldn't be suprised if someone right now isn't working on a malicious version of Code Red that, say, reformats the harddrive after a week, or something. If/when this happens, all those lazy/ignorant people will start making a fuss at how nobody told them anything about it.
Also note that just clicking on the link doesn't send the request - only if you happened to ask for the page default.ida?.... in other words, tried to query it as if it was a proper site. The only people who would do that are crackers, or Code Red attacks at this moment in time. Also, the shutdown request would not work unless you are infected with code red.
I agree with your second paragraph, ish. Thing is, most Linux users know what they are doing, or never manage to install it in the first place:-P
PS: I use Linux
But if you bought a make of car which the company later recalled to have new headlights fitted because a particular batch were faulty, it's your fault if you don't take your car in to be fixed, isn't it?
Remember that in C you have pointers as well as arrays, and that they are pretty much interchangeable.
Not only would you have to keep an eye on if a pointer is in a viable array or not, but how about if it moves to dynamically allocated memory? Could still be valid, but how are you going to check efficiently every time a pointer is accessed? How about if a pointer is of type char, and it moves into a memory area that has been allocated as type float? Should this be an error? How about if the programmer wanted to do this?
Me thinks that adding bounds checking to C would be more expensive than you think.
And rememebr, off screen bitmap drawing makes great use of pointers and arrays, and because bounds checking effectively removes the programmers ability to specify when checks should happen, they would happen whenever they _might_ be necessary - i.e. a lot of them would be redundant. All of this happening in the innermost loops of your bitmap drawing routines.
I know how completely absurd it is to assume that because someone is using Windows, they have no computer savvy.
This is possibly off topic, but I will say that I've been using various windows versions since Windows 95 came out (admittedly Windows NT/2000 only as a user, never with sysadmin access), and I still don't know exactly where different things are stored in the registry, how I could figure out what is wrong and fix it manually if the need ever arises (normally every six months or so with Windows 98).
I've been using Linux for about 6 months and have a pretty good idea how to do all of the above. Why? Because by nannying the user through everything, the user never _learns_ anything about Windows. Even now, any advice I ever heard about questions about Windows start "Um, have you tried rebooting?, no that didn't help? Try reinstalling it then..." and quite often gets no further.
Perhaps I simply have not found the correct information sources that you have, in which case I would appreciate hearing about them. If they mention the use of Wizards, they don't count:-)
Let's take a contrary example - windows managers on unix/linux. Now, if what you say is correct, then the chances are there would only be one or two about still being developed now-adays, correct? Because everyone would have "jumped on the bandwagon" and worked on just one of them. As it is, we have to very different desktop's being worked on, KDE and GNOME, then there's enlightenment, IceWM, etc. etc. etc
The problem with this, is that it doesn't happen. If there are two or three different ideas on what is "right" then people will choose the one that they feel has most promise.
And consider the case of the telephone, which you brought up. The technologies where similar, right? Well if they had the communication of the internet in those days, it's possible that they would have found out that they were working on similar things, and worked together, while as it was, they didn't. Maybe they wouldn't have worked together, but there would have been that air of competition to get there first.
And for your final point about venture capitalists, I agree. They got hit by gold-rush fever, thought that they were going to make lots of money, and a lot of them got stung. In hind sight, it's easy to ask "why did they even bother funding some of the things that they did on the internet?"
Cool - I'm coming over to your house tonight, taking your car out for awhile, but putting it back in the morning so you still have it....
Umm... no, that's not copying. What you would have to do is to go round with a super-high-tech cloning ray, make a copy of the car, then drive off with the copy, leaving the original behind.
And to be honest, if someone could do that, I wouldn't care if they copied my car or not. It wouldn't inconvenience me. hey-they could make a copy whilst I was driving along, and I wouldn't be inconvenienced at all.
Jason
Re:I'm a disappointed GNOME user...
on
KDE 2.2 Tagged
·
· Score: 1
Konq is nice but they need to incorperate, at lease a kmail button/ or the ability to customize the taskbar to where you may add what ever app you like.
You can add new buttons to the taskbar in KDE - simply right click on the taskbar, select add->Button then pick your app from the menu.
also, Konq has horrible fonts, until I can start konq up and be able to read every thing without playing with fonts I will say no thanks.
Fonts is something that seems to need work on, I agree. Hopefully they will be sorted out soon.
I prefer Konq over Mozilla though, mozilla is just _so_ sluggish to work with. On my pII 350Mhz, it takes a good 15 seconds for it to start up, and when it does, doing something like moving the mouse over a menu takes a good half second before it responds. Which annoys me.
The problem is that 'usability' is a function of what the users are used to
Agreed, but it also depends on what you are trying to do. If I wanted to do some complex file manipulation, then chances are I can do it easier with a CLI than I can with a GUI. If I want to do something like checking my email, A gui is easier to work with. Of course, a GUI is easier to learn than a CLI.
Quick example - Watching Code Red II attacks scroll down the screen in realtime on my Linux box running apache can be done using (shamelessly copied from a previous/. Code Red story):
The perfect GUI will be one where my mother can tell the computer to do that without help - both Windows and Linux have a long way to go before that happens:-)
Have you ever looked at the source code for any substantially large Linux application (or the kernel, for that matter)?
Actually, I had to to get my soundcard working. I have an Aureal Vortex 1, and the problem with the drivers for it, is that the majority of the code is closed-source, and Aureal has gone bust... meaning that there isn't a hope in hell of them being updated, and it's a right royal PITA to try and modify them. Luckily, some of the code is open source though...
When I tried to get them to work with Linux, the driver refused to recognise my sound card. I tracked down where this could happen in the driver, and then tracked the corresponding function in the Kernel source. Turned out to be an error in the driver, a one-liner. Fixed it, recompiled and bingo - sound in Linux.
Now, if I'd had this problem in Windows (which I have had with various other pieces of hardware in the past), what would I have done. Erm... Tried reinstalling the driver? The system? By a new sound card? etc. etc. etc...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, being not too familiar with the kernel docs, and not wanting to read them all, it was easier to grep the source tree and find the particular function I wanted to check out than it was to check the docs.
Sorry, but I don't take any post that uses phrases like "monstrous and evil" seriously, nor does suggesting that people opposed to your argument should be killed. If your not prepared to even listen to the opposing argument, you are irrational and should be ignored.
Surely this is a risk of the job, like breaking your leg in football?
I mean, how many people who type nowadays DON'T know about RSI? If you don't know that after being in front of a keyboard for 24 years, your foolish. I have already considered the possibility of getting RSI later in life, weighed it up with my wish to be a software developer, and decided that I am prepared to live with it if (or more likely, when) the time comes.
The analogy with football is the best here - the risk is known, perhaps typists who are _that_ worried should get insurance in case they develop RSI?
I think that this sums it up perfectly, to be honest. The trouble with patents and copyrights is that they prevent other people from taking and idea and extending it into something else. Thus, by having them, you simply slow down invention.
Think of the open standards that are emerging _because_ patents have been put on ideas, such as PNG because of patents behind GIF, Ogg Vorbis because of patents behind MP3's...
And to put it another way, if someone else can take your idea and do it cheaper, and more economically than you can, then by stopping them doing this and making your own version more expensive, you are screwing a hell of a lot of other people out of more money than they really need to spend.
Is that really how things should happen?
Would you care to elaborate, or was it a satricial post and I missed it?
Um, yes. I _hate_ doing this kind of menial task myself. The more concise it is (as long as it doesn't obfuscate the code, which the word math doesn't IMHO), the more time I can spend on thinking up the best solution to the problem.
Suggesting the Dreamcast isn't... actually your right :-)
Code Red has been around now (and has had at least 3 stories about it on Slashdot previous to this one, yes?) for a _long_ time. In other words, anyone who reads slashdot by now knows about it, and if they haven't fixed it, deserve a quick reboot to get their attention to fix it.
Secondly, if people aren't going to sit up and take notice of Code Red II now, we've gotta make 'em. I wouldn't be suprised if someone right now isn't working on a malicious version of Code Red that, say, reformats the harddrive after a week, or something. If/when this happens, all those lazy/ignorant people will start making a fuss at how nobody told them anything about it.
Also note that just clicking on the link doesn't send the request - only if you happened to ask for the page default.ida?.... in other words, tried to query it as if it was a proper site. The only people who would do that are crackers, or Code Red attacks at this moment in time. Also, the shutdown request would not work unless you are infected with code red.
I agree with your second paragraph, ish. Thing is, most Linux users know what they are doing, or never manage to install it in the first place :-P
PS: I use Linux
But if you bought a make of car which the company later recalled to have new headlights fitted because a particular batch were faulty, it's your fault if you don't take your car in to be fixed, isn't it?
Remember that in C you have pointers as well as arrays, and that they are pretty much interchangeable.
Not only would you have to keep an eye on if a pointer is in a viable array or not, but how about if it moves to dynamically allocated memory? Could still be valid, but how are you going to check efficiently every time a pointer is accessed? How about if a pointer is of type char, and it moves into a memory area that has been allocated as type float? Should this be an error? How about if the programmer wanted to do this?
Me thinks that adding bounds checking to C would be more expensive than you think.
And rememebr, off screen bitmap drawing makes great use of pointers and arrays, and because bounds checking effectively removes the programmers ability to specify when checks should happen, they would happen whenever they _might_ be necessary - i.e. a lot of them would be redundant. All of this happening in the innermost loops of your bitmap drawing routines.
now _that_ would be slow!
This is possibly off topic, but I will say that I've been using various windows versions since Windows 95 came out (admittedly Windows NT/2000 only as a user, never with sysadmin access), and I still don't know exactly where different things are stored in the registry, how I could figure out what is wrong and fix it manually if the need ever arises (normally every six months or so with Windows 98).
I've been using Linux for about 6 months and have a pretty good idea how to do all of the above. Why? Because by nannying the user through everything, the user never _learns_ anything about Windows. Even now, any advice I ever heard about questions about Windows start "Um, have you tried rebooting?, no that didn't help? Try reinstalling it then..." and quite often gets no further.
Perhaps I simply have not found the correct information sources that you have, in which case I would appreciate hearing about them. If they mention the use of Wizards, they don't count:-)
Neo may be invincible inside the matrix, but he is still your average guy outside of the matrix.
Let's take a contrary example - windows managers on unix/linux. Now, if what you say is correct, then the chances are there would only be one or two about still being developed now-adays, correct? Because everyone would have "jumped on the bandwagon" and worked on just one of them. As it is, we have to very different desktop's being worked on, KDE and GNOME, then there's enlightenment, IceWM, etc. etc. etc
The problem with this, is that it doesn't happen. If there are two or three different ideas on what is "right" then people will choose the one that they feel has most promise.
And consider the case of the telephone, which you brought up. The technologies where similar, right? Well if they had the communication of the internet in those days, it's possible that they would have found out that they were working on similar things, and worked together, while as it was, they didn't. Maybe they wouldn't have worked together, but there would have been that air of competition to get there first.
And for your final point about venture capitalists, I agree. They got hit by gold-rush fever, thought that they were going to make lots of money, and a lot of them got stung. In hind sight, it's easy to ask "why did they even bother funding some of the things that they did on the internet?"
Quick! Ban radio! People have been copying songs off that since tape recorders came out.
Cool - I'm coming over to your house tonight, taking your car out for awhile, but putting it back in the morning so you still have it.... Umm... no, that's not copying. What you would have to do is to go round with a super-high-tech cloning ray, make a copy of the car, then drive off with the copy, leaving the original behind. And to be honest, if someone could do that, I wouldn't care if they copied my car or not. It wouldn't inconvenience me. hey-they could make a copy whilst I was driving along, and I wouldn't be inconvenienced at all. Jason
You can add new buttons to the taskbar in KDE - simply right click on the taskbar, select add->Button then pick your app from the menu.
also, Konq has horrible fonts, until I can start konq up and be able to read every thing without playing with fonts I will say no thanks.
Fonts is something that seems to need work on, I agree. Hopefully they will be sorted out soon.
I prefer Konq over Mozilla though, mozilla is just _so_ sluggish to work with. On my pII 350Mhz, it takes a good 15 seconds for it to start up, and when it does, doing something like moving the mouse over a menu takes a good half second before it responds. Which annoys me.
Agreed, but it also depends on what you are trying to do. If I wanted to do some complex file manipulation, then chances are I can do it easier with a CLI than I can with a GUI. If I want to do something like checking my email, A gui is easier to work with. Of course, a GUI is easier to learn than a CLI.
Quick example - Watching Code Red II attacks scroll down the screen in realtime on my Linux box running apache can be done using (shamelessly copied from a previous /. Code Red story):
/var/log/apache/access.log | grep default.ida
tail -f
The perfect GUI will be one where my mother can tell the computer to do that without help - both Windows and Linux have a long way to go before that happens :-)
Actually, I had to to get my soundcard working. I have an Aureal Vortex 1, and the problem with the drivers for it, is that the majority of the code is closed-source, and Aureal has gone bust... meaning that there isn't a hope in hell of them being updated, and it's a right royal PITA to try and modify them. Luckily, some of the code is open source though...
When I tried to get them to work with Linux, the driver refused to recognise my sound card. I tracked down where this could happen in the driver, and then tracked the corresponding function in the Kernel source. Turned out to be an error in the driver, a one-liner. Fixed it, recompiled and bingo - sound in Linux.
Now, if I'd had this problem in Windows (which I have had with various other pieces of hardware in the past), what would I have done. Erm... Tried reinstalling the driver? The system? By a new sound card? etc. etc. etc...
Jason